the Applicant v RPM Automotive Holdings Pty Ltd & the Respondent
Citation: [2026] FWCFB 168
What happened
the Applicant appealed a Fair Work Commission decision regarding his application for dealing with contraventions involving dismissal. He had been CEO and CFO of his family business, the Nash Group, which sold Chapel Corner Service Centre (CCT) to RPM Automotive Holdings Pty Ltd (RPMAH). the Applicant continued providing services through a Consultancy Agreement, invoicing via his corporate entity, Starchild Advisory Pty Ltd. The Deputy President found he was not an employee but carried on a business of his own.
What was decided
The Full Bench refused permission to appeal the Deputy President’s decision. They found no arguable case of error in the Deputy President's findings regarding whether the Applicant had been dismissed, or whether he was an employee versus an independent contractor. The bench considered arguments about the Business Sale Agreement (BSA), Consultancy Agreement, and commercial drivers but ultimately upheld the original decision.
What it means for employers
Employers should carefully document contractual relationships to clearly define roles and responsibilities. Ensure agreements accurately reflect the nature of the working arrangement – employee or independent contractor – considering factors like control, integration, and economic dependence. Reviewing arrangements beyond formal contracts is important to assess the true nature of the relationship.
What it means for employees
Employees should be aware that their actions and statements during a contractual relationship can be considered when determining employment status. If an employee believes they are misclassified as an independent contractor, it's crucial to raise concerns promptly and document any inconsistencies with this classification.
Want this applied to your situation?
Reading the decision is free. FairWork Mate goes further — it reads the full case library and applies precedents like this one to your specific facts, citing the cases as it reasons. General information, not a guaranteed outcome or legal advice.
Every statement above is drawn from the published decision. Read the original here:
https://www.fwc.gov.au/documents/decisionssigned/pdf/2026fwcfb168.pdfWant more cases like this?
FairWork Mate tracks Fair Work Ombudsman, Fair Work Commission and Federal Court decisions across Australia. The AI advisor answers plain-English questions grounded on the full corpus — awards cited, industry, penalty amounts and affected employee counts — with a citation to the underlying decision on every answer.
Individual case summaries on this site are free. Full-corpus advisor access is a paid product — Business Solo from $99/mo, 50% off your first 3 months for the first 100 signups.
Get notified on new Fair Work cases
Free email alerts when we publish new underpayment decisions, penalty orders, and workplace law updates.
Free forever. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
This summary was drafted from the published decision and reviewed before publishing. It is general information, not legal advice. For your specific situation, speak to the Fair Work Ombudsman (13 13 94) or a qualified lawyer. About these summaries & corrections →